Not that I disagree with your main conclusions, but a few counterpoints:
While the fastest short term improvement involves studying your weakest area, in the long term most students will have to improve every area of their game to reach master level. You may not begin with your weak point, but it's not wasted time, and it doesn't rule out improving your weakness later in the program.
The efficacy of a good coach isn't itself a point against any other method.
While I agree 12 hours a month seems wholly inadequate, the 10,000 hours to reach mastery idea didn't (AFAIK) define mastery. It could be the case that "mastery" to them would be a 1500 equivalent. Or a 2500 equivalent. It seems too convenient to believe that their "mastery" is equivalent to a NM or FM title.
Thanks for responding bb_gum234.
In response to what you have said- your first counterpoint is very valid. However, when players hit plateaus, it is easy to lose drive for the game which is one of the key aspects needed for improvement. If a player loses drive due to his weaknesses not being addressed, then improvement will never be attained (even though the student's knowledgebase will be increasing).
My comment about the efficacy of a good coach isn't in itself a criticism of the program. However, a good coach might only be slightly more expensive than this program (10 hours for perhaps 200$) and definitely more beneficial (as it will be personalized).
Although I don't remember specifically from what book (sorry for that), my friend taking sociology specifically showed me a paragraph relating the 10,000 hour concept to chess because she knew I love the game. I can't attest to the accuracy of the source (I didn't read the book), but I can attest to what was said there.
For those reading: This is a long post and I hope that you will take the time to read it. However, if not, the general theme of the post covers flaws in the mindset of the chess.com university prodigy program- which, although with its merits – still sees its fair share of struggles as well.
What does it take to improve? Well, chess is one of the most complex games known to man, so it is truly hard to pinpoint this. Every player is also different, so no one set method will really help every player improve. Whereas I might need to work on developing my opening theory, “Charlie” might need to work on developing his endgame. It is true that all players can likely improve in all phases of the game, but for many, the greatest improvement will come simply by focusing on one’s greatest weakness and building it to a point where it no longer hinders progress in the rest of one’s progress.
Many people would argue that in order to do this, one can do many things. For starters, one can simply play many games, analyze their losses, and develop their game as suggested by the analysis. However, some players recognize that they cannot pinpoint their own weaknesses/errors. The key here for many players is to either a) resort to a computer/chess engine (not the best plan, as the computer cannot provide reasoning for its analysis) or b) resort to a chess coach who can precisely pick out what is going wrong, show a student how to fix it, and then make sure that the student fixes the problem. Clearly, I sound like I endorse the idea of coaching here- which I do- which should make you wonder why I am not endorsing a program such as the prodigy program offered here on chess.com.
What a chess coach does that the prodigy program simply cannot is provide a specialized training regimen for a specific student. As stated above, every student/chess player is different and needs to be taught in different ways. Coaches that teach students to be cookie-cutter players are the coaches that ruin potentially great chess players around the world. IM Josh Waitzkin, a chess prodigy who was supposedly the next Bobby Fischer, had his love of the game ruined by Dvoretsky, who suggested that he continuously alter his style to be more Karpovian. His learning style asked almost the exact opposite of this- and Dvoretsky’s style ruined his love for the game. However, many coaches can provide a specialized learning program unique to students, which is exactly what improving players need. The prodigy program- which is aimed at building numerous students up all at once, simply cannot provide this as it is teaching too many players who all have different chess and learning styles at once. Therefore, it is resulting in cookie cutter players – players who will surely find that their love for the innate nature of the game has diminished by the time that they “finish” the program.
You might also be wondering why I put finish in quotations above. Well, the prodigy program makes the claim that a student participating in the program for 5 years will attain master level status. Doing the math out, 12 hours per month * 12 months per year * 5 years, a student will have completed 720 hours of study (should a student consistently take the time to attend and watch all sessions). Many psychologists argue that in order to master any skill it takes well over 10,000 hours on average. This, of course, holds the same for chess and may perhaps be an understatement due to the complexity of the game. Without any evidence to substantiate this claim, I find it hard to rationalize why any individual should dish out 9,000 US dollars for education led by a player who fails to hold the master title himself and claims he can help transform the “average Joe” chess player into a master in 5 years.
Now, as I finish up my argument against the program, I would like to say a few things of note. First and foremost, I strongly respect Mr. Joshi for taking the time to help put together a program with such great intentions. I believe that players who participate do have a great chance to improve and surely will with the help of all the staff of the chess.com university. Secondly, I also want to say that by no means will participation in a program like this actually lead to a diminished love for the game – however, I am just putting out the idea that it could – as seen with many great chess players of the past. Finally, I want to clarify that it is not impossible for a player to master chess after 720 hours of study (many brilliant children can) – however, it is unlikely and as many great coaches (such as Dan Heisman) have said – we simply cannot guarantee how much you will improve in a given time.
All the best,
Pawnpusher3